[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Pretty smoothly, both technically and publicly, AFAIR. It still seems to be working pretty well, but there are coverage gaps.

So well in fact there are already two pieces of legislation to change over to single-payer; H. 1053, S. 572 and H. 1035, S. 515. Notwithstanding of course that Massachusetts enjoyed a balanced budget, approximately 4% unemployment, less than 3/4th the poverty rate of the US, median household annual income $13k higher than the US, and overwhelming majority support among voters when it was passed... and then heavily modified by Patrick.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Same accomplishment. Most people don't buy cars for them to not be driven. Unfortunately there is no sort of equivalent I can think of for health insurance, other than existence. If you are against the individual mandate, fine, but then Dakar's question about your acceptance of auto insurance is a fair one.

Besson, in what states are you mandated to buy a car?

It is not a fair assessment because my needs were met by a bike (catastrophic only) and now I'm being forced to buy a car (full heath plan beyond just insurance).

Not to mention it's not even remotely the same kind of insurance.

Auto's require LIABILITY insurance.
People require (in the closest approximation to auto insurance types) COLLISION, PREVENTATIVE, MAINTENANCE, COMPREHENSIVE, REPAIRS, FLUIDS, CAR WASHES, TIRES, WINDSHIELD WIPERS, BULB REPLACEMENT and ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE Your health plans do not include a liability aspect, and this is the only type of insurance required to operate a vehicle.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

More proof that the folks most annoyed by those decrying socialism either don't know what it is or they appreciate the idea and feel its negative baggage is unfortunate.

I think it is proof that the people crying socialism have no concept of the fact that these claims often come across as utterly incoherent, emotional, or both.

My sense is that most of the time the people that cry socialism really mean socialist-esque, or that this puts us on the path to socialism - the whole slippery slope thing.

It is incoherent for a number of reasons:

1) People often seem to conflate socialism with a social democracy (Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). "Socialist" means a very specific thing, if you mean "socialist-esque", say that. Most of the time I mentally substitute conservative Americans going on about socialism with a social democracy.

2) The debate is over what sort of programs should be social vs. private, but we are in no danger of being one policy move away from socialism, and if we are on a slipper slope the slope is far more likely to lead us to a social democracy. In some ways we already have a social democracy since we have a number of the safety nets you'd find in a social democracy.

3) The US is so far away from being socialist it is laughable that people would feel consternation over this. There are a number of European countries considered social democracies, and Canada could be lumped into this category as well, yet people think of these countries as democratic free market based societies before they think of them as socialist nations.


It is often very emotional too, mostly because, as is often the case with Republicans these days, it is overstated and full of hyperbole and angst.

I'm telling you, the best way to progress the conservative agenda in this country is to cool it with the hysterics, and just get somebody to articulate coherently without all of the weird emotional, dramatic stuff. I understand that many conservatives feel that the urgency of the situation necessitates the drama, but:

1) You can't be dramatic about every damn thing

2) The urgency doesn't require emotional manipulation, it will speak for itself with the proper evidence and argument

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Besson, in what states are you mandated to buy a car?

It is not a fair assessment because my needs were met by a bike (catastrophic only) and now I'm being forced to buy a car (full heath plan beyond just insurance).

Fair enough.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

'Tis true. The Rs put the gun to their heads with glee last month; I'm not surprised the Ds are goading them to do it again. God knows what else might happen.

There's that awful hyperbole again. "Put a gun to their heads" for requesting two things, one of which Dems wanted and the other they're calling for now? That's laughable to the core.

That's not the concern. The shutdown killed the GOP national numbers. Another shutdown would give them more ammo for the 2014 elections.

First of all, it took a toll on Democrats' numbers as well, it just hurt them less. You don't think a shutdown would overshadow the more apparent failures of the exchange rollout just as it did the first half of October?

The Republican strength has always been in their ability to act as one; The shutdown demonstrated how fractured the Republicans currently are and Obama and the Democrats did their best impression of unity. It worked. But if history has taught us anything, Democrats are excellent at snatching defeat from the jaws victory. Which is to say, yeah, if the Republicans get out of the way they'll be golden.

You're right to be cautiously-optimistic here as I warned some time ago the Democrats' turn is coming. Watch as they run from this legislation as fast as they can in the coming months. It will begin with heightened calls for a delay and feigned concern for the millions getting dropped from their current plans.

Edit: Again, a nonfunctioning website is an "abysmal failure"?

The swiss-cheese that is the security of the exchange database, hundreds of thousands already receiving letters that they've been dumped from the plans they sought and purchased in spite of repeated promises to the contrary, the sticker-shock of increased premiums and deductibles, and mandatory coverage for maternity and newborn care regardless of their personal circumstances among 8 other categories of mandatory coverages, and the fact that funding for the program is largely contingent upon a demographic more interested in gaming and electronics than health care all constitute abysmal failures of the program. If they can tell you how many applications were completed to see the costs, but refuse to cite any numbers on actual enrollees, you should be very skeptical of the potential success of the program. Our federal government having spent $400+ million and over 3 years on an exchange portal that doesn't work is just the most apparent, abysmal failure.

More to come...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The swiss-cheese that is the security of the exchange database, hundreds of thousands already receiving letters that they've been dumped from the plans they sought and purchased in spite of repeated promises to the contrary, the sticker-shock of increased premiums and deductibles, and mandatory coverage for maternity and newborn care regardless of their personal circumstances among 8 other categories of mandatory coverages, and the fact that funding for the program is largely contingent upon a demographic more interested in gaming and electronics than health care all constitute abysmal failures of the program. If they can tell you how many applications were completed to see the costs, but refuse to cite any numbers on actual enrollees, you should be very skeptical of the potential success of the program. Our federal government having spent $400+ million and over 3 years on an exchange portal that doesn't work is just the most apparent, abysmal failure.

But relative to what? Were you expecting a flawless transition?

Is the rockiness of this transition unprecedented? Do Republicans shoulder some blame for putting all of their eggs into the basket of repeal (all 46 attempts, or whatever it was), rather than trying to smooth out these rough edges?

[besson3c]

I ask the "should Republicans shoulder some blame" question, in part because at some point, isn't this like your place of work mandating a software change that people don't like? As always, there is grumbling, but eventually people often try to hold their noses and figure out how to make the software work for the company, as endless complaining about it eventually becomes counter-productive. Sometimes, if it is bad enough, people leave the company, other times it just sucks for a while but then things slowly improve. For us, most people don't have the option of leaving the country, although they are free to focus on the next election.

I think after repeal attempt #x maybe this "hold our noses, let's make this work" way of thinking should have kicked in? I'm not trying to stimulate finger pointing, but hopefully eventually politicians will take a "we're all in this together" attitude, at least until 2016?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I ask the "should Republicans shoulder some blame" question, in part because at some point, isn't this like your place of work mandating a software change that people don't like?

No. No no no. NO!

Your place of work is not a democratic republic.

Come on, man.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I ask the "should Republicans shoulder some blame" question, in part because at some point, isn't this like your place of work mandating a software change that people don't like? As always, there is grumbling, but eventually people often try to hold their noses and figure out how to make the software work for the company, as endless complaining about it eventually becomes counter-productive. Sometimes, if it is bad enough, people leave the company, other times it just sucks for a while but then things slowly improve. For us, most people don't have the option of leaving the country, although they are free to focus on the next election.

I think after repeal attempt #x maybe this "hold our noses, let's make this work" way of thinking should have kicked in? I'm not trying to stimulate finger pointing, but hopefully eventually politicians will take a "we're all in this together" attitude, at least until 2016?

Besson, we aren't talking about a company with hundreds or thousands of people going out of business. We are talking about a country's economy collapsing.

"Lets just try it until we get it right" is not the attitude I want from my leadership, as over a third of my income goes to this government. You forget that all this wasted money comes directly out of our pockets, and ironically, could have gone towards our health expenditures if it weren't confiscated and wasted by our dear leader.

I was recently promoted to project manager in my company. 101 of project management is if you recognize a problem, stop what you're doing and re evaluate the situation. Throwing good money after bad hoping for a miracle has been tried many many times in the history of man, and failed in just about every situation.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But relative to what? Were you expecting a flawless transition?

Is the rockiness of this transition unprecedented? Do Republicans shoulder some blame for putting all of their eggs into the basket of repeal (all 46 attempts, or whatever it was), rather than trying to smooth out these rough edges?

Besson, what have we transitioned to? We are mandated to purchase something from a website with a hard deadline under penalty of law, and the frikken thing doesn't work 20% of the way into the enrollment period . Every person qualified to speak on the matter that isn't on team Obama projects more problems and Obama has not done anything to suggest otherwise except hit the campaign trail. He won't even release the number of enrollees to date. Transparency! Hope! [positive] Change!. 0 for 3. And you think I still want my money going into this thing not only through taxes but a forced purchase just to see if maybe it might get better a decade from now? We already have an out of control debt problem that's not going to get better unless drastic changes are made today. My share of the national debt is literally 50 times my current yearly health expenditures, yet like a teen with an amex we can't seem to stop the spending and are threatening to shut the government down if we don't confiscate more money to cover our tab.

By demanding tax increases to cover the lack of enrollees in obamacare, the dems are digging their own graves. The American public will not stand for such insanity. Mark my words on that

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

No. No no no. NO!

Your place of work is not a democratic republic.

Come on, man.

That is true, but I'm referring to the post-launch process. Ultimately it's a matter of working with what exists, or rejecting what exists. As far as rejecting what exists, do you really want Republicans to be do nothing but destroy what exists until 2014 until they can maybe get enough seats in the Senate to bring about change, hoping that Obama won't veto these efforts?

At some point politicians are going to have to hold their noses and work on improving what we have.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Besson, we aren't talking about a company with hundreds or thousands of people going out of business. We are talking about a country's economy collapsing.

"Lets just try it until we get it right" is not the attitude I want from my leadership, as over a third of my income goes to this government. You forget that all this wasted money comes directly out of our pockets, and ironically, could have gone towards our health expenditures if it weren't confiscated and wasted by our dear leader.

I was recently promoted to project manager in my company. 101 of project management is if you recognize a problem, stop what you're doing and re evaluate the situation. Throwing good money after bad hoping for a miracle has been tried many many times in the history of man, and failed in just about every situation.

I agree with this.

However, the way to re-evaluate the situation is to work with what exists to get a handle on where things are at and what can and can't be fixed, assessing things objectively, not just complaining as loudly as possible.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is true, but I'm referring to the post-launch process. Ultimately it's a matter of working with what exists, or rejecting what exists. As far as rejecting what exists, do you really want Republicans to be do nothing but destroy what exists until 2014 until they can maybe get enough seats in the Senate to bring about change, hoping that Obama won't veto these efforts?

At some point politicians are going to have to hold their noses and work on improving what we have.

Yes, I want ALL congress people to reject what doesn't work. That is their job. You act as if their aren't alternatives that are fiscally solvent that republicans have been suggesting the entire time. If Obama's attitude is that if he's going down then he's taking America with him, I hope to God the republicans get this thing repealed and fast, because at least the old system functioned.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes, I want ALL congress people to reject what doesn't work. That is their job. You act as if their aren't alternatives that are fiscally solvent that republicans have been suggesting the entire time. If Obama's attitude is that if he's going down then he's taking America with him, I hope to God the republicans get this thing repealed and fast, because at least the old system functioned.

I remain unconvinced that these problems can't be solved, and that when they are we'll have a better system than what we have now.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, the way to re-evaluate the situation is to work with what exists to get a handle on where things are at and what can and can't be fixed, assessing things objectively, not just complaining as loudly as possible.

No, Besson. You made that up. You made that up just now because it sounded good in your head, but has no connection to reality.

If your project has problems that you can't fix according to the project plan, you put the project on hold and make a new plan that works around the problems you can't fix within the constraints of your budget, scope, timeline, resources, etc. The last thing you want to do is keep going and pray that your new plan magically requires the same input, output, resources and timeline as your old one. (hint: this never happens even in relatively small projects).

However, since admitting failure or regrouping would be politically unfavorable for the dems, looks like we're all going down with the ship just like many project managers who's careers depend on success or failure. The one's who make it follow established doctrine, the one's who don't....well they get fired for a reason.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, Besson. You made that up. You made that up just now because it sounded good in your head, but has no connection to reality.

Huh?

If your project has problems that you can't fix according to the project plan, you put the project on hold and make a new plan that works around the problems you can't fix within the constraints of your budget, timeline, resources, etc. The last thing you want to do is keep going and pray that your new plan magically requires the same input, output, resources and timeline as your old one.

Maybe, but if the new plan just needs some modifications before it works well, and it would be easier to just make these modifications in the time we have before the system is put into production, it's just a matter of looking at what those modifications are and what sort of time/resources will be needed to make these modifications weighed against the time/resources to table/scrap the plan.

For example, if you install Mavericks and some of your apps don't work because Mavericks clobbered the old Java version and the new one needs to be installed, simply installing that Java version would be easier than planning for a downgrade/reinstall/whatever.

I don't have enough information to say whether this comparison is apt, but hopefully you get the general premise here.

[Snow-i]

Here Besson, let me give you an example of what happens when a project plan falls apart but you keep going anyways.

Bankrupt solar panel firm took stimulus money, left a toxic mess, says report | Fox News

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Huh?



Maybe, but if the new plan just needs some modifications before it works well,

And how to you determine that?

and it would be easier to just make these modifications in the time we have before the system is put into production, it's just a matter of looking at what those modifications are and what sort of time/resources will be needed to make these modifications weighed against the time/resources to table/scrap the plan.

Right, but until you can validate that those modifications will fit with the rest of the plan, you're just dreaming. "just hoping" doesn't work, and is a retarded mentality towards meeting your requirements. None of the aspects of this law operate in a vacuum so if one aspect changes, you've got to evaluate the impact on all other phases of the project. They all change because they're all dependent on one another to produce certain expected values. Surely as a coder, you know that one misplaced line of code can drastically impact the software as a whole. What happens when you're coding something that isn't behaving as you expected? Just keep coding? Or do you go back and fix the problems before moving development further? Surely you don't deliver that code to your clients. Otherwise, you'd be out of business.

For example, if you install Mavericks and some of your apps don't work because Mavericks clobbered the old Java version and the new one needs to be installed, simply installing that Java version would be easier than planning for a downgrade/reinstall/whatever.

That's why you don't install Mavericks until you've tested the environment as fully as you're able to. If you install and there is a bug that prevents you from meeting your delivery timeline what do you do? Roll it back to the last stable version and continue testing until you're 100% confident Mavericks will meet your project's requirements. You don't just say "hey, half the program isn't working but maybe by the end the bug will fix itself if we add 100 developers and just wing it."

I don't have enough information to say whether this comparison is apt, but hopefully you get the general premise here.

Just to make sure I understand, you think that we should just let it run its course and hope that simply promising to do better and throwing a bunch of money at it will fix it? The problems extend wayyyy past the front end (website). You don't have a stable framework with which to work since your assumptions have proven to be invalid (or at least have serious concerns).

I would never, ever, ever just tel my devs to work more hours and see if you can't get it working. Our clients would drop us in 12 seconds flat if they got wind thats how we operate. I would put them on another project until I was [i]absolutely certain{/i] that the new plan was sound and backed up by testing, that the client accepts the adjusted deliverables, and that we aren't losing money on the project as a whole trying to fix it.

Lost in all this is that Obama doesn't have the authority to modify the project plan. Only Congress has that power, and rightfully so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But relative to what? Were you expecting a flawless transition?

IMO, the flaw is in your perception. There's nothing flawless about non-working. I'll explain.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I ask the "should Republicans shoulder some blame" question, in part because at some point, isn't this like your place of work mandating a software change that people don't like? As always, there is grumbling, but eventually people often try to hold their noses and figure out how to make the software work for the company, as endless complaining about it eventually becomes counter-productive. Sometimes, if it is bad enough, people leave the company, other times it just sucks for a while but then things slowly improve. For us, most people don't have the option of leaving the country, although they are free to focus on the next election.

No, companies don't respond this way. It's called; "revert to old" and they do it all the time on routers, switches, transport gear of all shapes and sizes, as well as internal software and firmware pushes that go belly-up. You cannot afford an 88% drop in productivity as you've seen in traffic to healthcare.gov. Why? Because customers are more important than this.

I think after repeal attempt #x maybe this "hold our noses, let's make this work" way of thinking should have kicked in? I'm not trying to stimulate finger pointing, but hopefully eventually politicians will take a "we're all in this together" attitude, at least until 2016?

In the current political environment, you're absolutely right. This is precisely why they're not calling for repeal within it. They're calling for the same thing Democrats are now calling for.

[Snow-i]

I'm just astounded Obama hasn't pulled the NSA to finish this damn thing. They're the only ones in the government that seem to be good at what they do (military notwithstanding), at least then the website would work and this thing would fall under its own weight a few years faster and we could actually get on to implementing something that works.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is true, but I'm referring to the post-launch process. Ultimately it's a matter of working with what exists, or rejecting what exists. As far as rejecting what exists, do you really want Republicans to be do nothing but destroy what exists until 2014 until they can maybe get enough seats in the Senate to bring about change, hoping that Obama won't veto these efforts?

At some point politicians are going to have to hold their noses and work on improving what we have.

I'd say that point is when you can get 2/3 of the legislature behind it.

As much as the Repulicans have pissed me off, it was sheer folly on Obama's part to think all you need to rework our health care system with just a majority behind him.

It should have been clear almost immediately this is too divisive of an environment to pull it off. The solution then becomes to be less divisive.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say that point is when you can get 2/3 of the legislature behind it.

As much as the Repulicans have pissed me off, it was sheer folly on Obama's part to think all you need to rework our health care system with just a majority behind him.

It should have been clear almost immediately this is too divisive of an environment to pull it off. The solution then becomes to be less divisive.

I would agree with all of this. However, the environment was divisive even before the health care debate started, and I think that the health care situation (i.e. costs) has gotten so dire that simply waiting for a less divisive environment was not an option. It's hard to see a future where the environment is not divisive without some sort of major shakeup perhaps coming from some sort of major event such as another 9/11.

My greatest hope is that politicians will someday believe that basing their entire strategy around the destruction of the opposition is not a good idea. If the environment were less corrosive, it would be able to compete on ideas alone rather than political score-keeping.

Some people in here allude to taking a Republican idea for health care that they've been advocating for a while, but the problem is that, it seems:

1) It is hard for politicians to have their ideas heard unless they are outrageous or say outrageous things

2) It is hard to find politicians like Chris Christie whom, for whatever reason, people listen to, and can also articulate these ideas

It annoys me to no end that the messaging/efforts weren't focused more around promoting better ideas rather than just trying to destroy the opposition. Right now this happens to be the Republicans I'm picking on here, but these problems I've listed are general problems.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would agree with all of this. However, the environment was divisive even before the health care debate started, and I think that the health care situation (i.e. costs) has gotten so dire that simply waiting for a less divisive environment was not an option. It's hard to see a future where the environment is not divisive without some sort of major shakeup perhaps coming from some sort of major event such as another 9/11.

Sooooooooo.....

http://cdn-files.soa.org/web/researc...aca-report.pdf



Page 8 has a chart of projected increases under the ACA, and if the goal was to reduce costs then Obama has failed, miserably, and we should repeal this thing ASAP.

Even if Obama magically fixes all of its implementation problems, on average, in the US, it will be 28% more expensive for the newly insured.

That's insane, and frankly scares the shit out of me. Goodbye middle class, it was fun while it lasted.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Page 8 has a chart of projected increases under the ACA, and if the goal was to reduce costs then Obama has failed, miserably, and we should repeal this thing ASAP.

Even if Obama magically fixes all of its implementation problems, on average, in the US, it will be 28% more expensive for the newly insured.

That's insane, and frankly scares the prostitute out of me. Goodbye middle class, it was fun while it lasted.

That chart doesn't seem to take into account income, unless I'm missing something somewhere else in that document?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That chart doesn't seem to take into account income, unless I'm missing something somewhere else in that document?

Why would income matter when calculating expense? Subsidized or not the cost is the cost. Subsidies don't spring up out of the ground, somebody has to pay.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why would income matter when calculating expense? Subsidized or not the cost is the cost. Subsidies don't spring up out of the ground, somebody has to pay.

You wrote:

Even if Obama magically fixes all of its implementation problems, on average, in the US, it will be 28% more expensive for the newly insured.

That's insane, and frankly scares the snort out of me. Goodbye middle class, it was fun while it lasted.

Why would the middle class be screwed if they are benefiting from the subsidies?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You wrote:



Why would the middle class be screwed if they are benefiting from the subsidies?

Besson doesn't Math well.

Whether the individual pays it or the government funds it with other individuals' tax money, the expense is the expense. That number doesn't change because of who's really paying for it. There will be an average of 28% more expense to be paid for the newly insured because of the ACA.

You do understand that the subsidies come from other people, right? They don't magically appear to save the day. American taxpayers and mandated individuals (people who aren't golf buddies with Obama) will bear 28% more expense for newly insured people, no matter how that expense is distributed among the population. The poor certainly aren't going to be paying for it, and the elite will still get their exemption from their friends in the gubment, or just pass the expense on down because they have the means to do so. The middle class will end up not only covering that 28% but as well whatever subsidies are given to the poor for them to be able to afford it (since the whole point of this was that they couldn't before).

Obama, his cronies, Congress, and the Unions will avoid this 28% increase in cost because of their exemption from the ACA, which I'd still love to hear how you justify, besson.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Besson doesn't Math well.

There is no need for this.

Whether the individual pays it or the government funds it with other individuals' tax money, the expense is the expense. That number doesn't change because of who's really paying for it. There will be an average of 28% more expense to be paid for the newly insured because of the ACA.

You do understand that the subsidies come from other people, right? They don't magically appear to save the day. American taxpayers and mandated individuals (people who aren't golf buddies with Obama) will bear 28% more expense for newly insured people, no matter how that expense is distributed among the population. The poor certainly aren't going to be paying for it, and the elite will still get their exemption from their friends in the gubment, or just pass the expense on down because they have the means to do so. The middle class will end up not only covering that 28% but as well whatever subsidies are given to the poor for them to be able to afford it (since the whole point of this was that they couldn't before).

Obama, his cronies, Congress, and the Unions will avoid this 28% increase in cost because of their exemption from the ACA, which I'd still love to hear how you justify, besson.

This is fine, but this is not what what you wrote implied to me. What you wrote seemed like you were speaking from the vantage point of how some middle class individual could afford this, not how the country as a whole can. How the economics of this works out for the entire country is a conversation that needs to be put in a different light.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no need for this.

Sorry, it was in jest. I was hoping my use of math as a verb would impart this. I failed, I'm sorry.

This is fine, but this is not what what you wrote implied to me. What you wrote seemed like you were speaking from the vantage point of how some middle class individual could afford this, not how the country as a whole can. How the economics of this works out for the entire country is a conversation that needs to be put in a different light.

But 28% more expense on newly insured is 28% more expense for the whole country. There's no other light to put it in other then America will now pay 28% more for the same healthcare. You can hide the costs by leveraging higher taxes all you want, but the bottom line is that we are getting the same product for 28% more then it previously cost us. You wanna take that from the rich? At least call it what it is so we can have a healthy debate: wealth redistribution.

[Snow-i]

Here's a map derived from that same chart:



Looks like I'm getting nailed at about 250% vs the 67% average for Maryland. I make $36,000 dollars a year with no benefits - $24,000 after tax (though I get a tax break on my classes). I've made a little more and could command more, but I love my job and i believe I am getting the experience that I need for when I actually need to start making more money.

For the record, i pay all my own bills including rent, bought my own car, and am putting myself through college without a loan on this salary and still can usually rustle up a few dollars for a drink or two each week. Why the **** am I paying for other people's health care?

I have no shame in admitting my salary.

To give you some perspective:
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...-in-35-states/

I could be making more effective money by being on welfare (i live in MD). I did it without help. Am doing it. How? By being smart with my money and not buying stupid shit. One class a semester, because that's all i can afford and all I have time for, but it works for me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But 28% more expense on newly insured is 28% more expense for the whole country. There's no other light to put it in other then America will now pay 28% more for the same healthcare. You can hide the costs by leveraging higher taxes all you want, but the bottom line is that we are getting the same product for 28% more then it previously cost us. You wanna take that from the rich? At least call it what it is so we can have a healthy debate: wealth redistribution.

Also fair, but you isolated the middle class in your post. If the rich are paying for these subsidies for the poor/middle class, then from the vantage point of the middle class they aren't being burdened.

I think you are being a little dramatic with the wealth redistribution label, as if this is some new and novel thing when it comes to insurance. All insurance plans make their greatest liabilities pay the most and spread the risk around, only in the case of health it's kind of an unusual thing in that who the greatest liabilities will be is somewhat unpredictable. I mean, on average the poor deal with more preventable stuff, but anybody can get some sort of freak disease like Chinese Monkey Pox.

Chinese Monkey Pox is a horrible disease, one of its symptoms being obsessing over steal.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Here's a map derived from that same chart:



Looks like I'm getting nailed at about 250% vs the 67% average for Maryland. I make $36,000 dollars a year with no benefits - $24,000 after tax (though I get a tax break on my classes). I've made a little more and could command more, but I love my job and i believe I am getting the experience that I need for when I actually need to start making more money.

For the record, i pay all my own bills, bought my own car, and am putting myself through college without a loan on this salary. Why the **** am I paying for other people's health care?

I have no shame in admitting my salary.

To give you some perspective:
Source: On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

I could be making more effective money by being on welfare (i live in MD). I did it. Am doing it. How? By being smart with my money and not buying stupid shit.

Have you tried plugging in your numbers here?

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

1) People often seem to conflate socialism with a social democracy (Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). "Socialist" means a very specific thing, if you mean "socialist-esque", say that. Most of the time I mentally substitute conservative Americans going on about socialism with a social democracy.

Like I said, people most offended or annoyed by the use of the term socialism either haven't a clue what it is or support it and feel its negative baggage is unfortunate.

[BadKosh]

SIX people were 'successful' in getting registered for Owe-bamacare healthcare insurance on day one? Amazing. I hear its a several step program, where you first get registered to apply, then sort through the various options, and finally purchase the policy through a private sector provider. The low info folks may really be screwed here.

NPR interviewed some young people in CA. most were poorly informed, and had different priorities which didn't include buying insurance because the cost was too high, and they would rather spend their money on iPods, cars and toys. Maybe they were too low info young'uns?

[Shaddim]

It appears that some (actually most) swing states are going to get hammered.

[BadKosh]

Do you think it was 'by design' ? We know that the Administration knew back in 2009 that about 92 million would be dumped off their insurance, but they denied/lied about that.

[BadKosh]

You can't make this stuff up! ...Oh ....Wait....

AP editors: Obama relies on staged propaganda photos | The Daily Caller

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

More proof that the folks most annoyed by those decrying socialism either don't know what it is or they appreciate the idea and feel its negative baggage is unfortunate.

Feel free to elucidate rather than take vague pot shots at me.

The only reason it has negative baggage is because no admits to the parts of it we use and like. So we get idiots like this:

[subego]

I feel like the lone defender of the baggage-free term "socialism".

The ACA is socialist, so is the military.

I like the military, therefore I am capable of liking socialism.

My dislike of the ACA isn't anti-socialism. That would be inordinately hypocritical of me considering I'm in a state pool right now. My main issue has been it's going to be too expensive.

[The Final Dakar]

Piece of shit forum!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. There is no mandate that you must buy auto insurance of any kind. It is a requirement of registering a vehicle. Vast difference.

This sounds like semantics. If you own a car and use it on the road, you must have insurance. (And as my insurer pointed out just having a car parked on the street was required to be insured).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They are not both mandatory. Only the ACA is mandatory.

It's called compulsory auto insurance. Compulsory means required. Synonym, mandatory.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Liability insurance for auto's is a requirement of obtaining a valid registration which differs immensely from simply "being alive".

Simply being alive triggers a lot of laws.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Let's name some other things that are mandatory under US law.

....Wait, the ACA is just about it.

Taxes? Taking care of your children? Educating them? Insuring your car? Disposing of trash properly? Disposing of a dead body properly? God knows how much I can't even think of.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Local governments are far better equipped to regulate local populations then the federal government. Voters have more of a say for what happens in their back yard. Federal regulations mean that to effect change in your neighborhood, you must gain the majority support of representatives hundreds and thousands of miles away that face their own set of challenges, conditions, requirements, etc.

Do you think Florida's healthcare system should be affected by voters in Alaska?

Some amount of regulation is necessary in every state. Why do you think it's a good idea to regulate Alaskans the same way you regulate Floridians? When was the last time a floridian suffered hypothermia or had to deal with a moose attack? Do you think Alaskans face the same threat of skin cancer then those from Florida?

We've been talking about improving healthcare since the 1970s. They had 40 years. One state did anything about it. Looks like time's up.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Allow me to rectify your ignorance on the subject. In no state, anywhere in the US, are you required to purchase insurance for your own car. Most states have a mandate requiring you to purchase liability insurance. Liability insurance only covers damage you do to others while operating your vehicle.

Semantics. You own a car your are compelled to purchase insurance for it. Or not use it (publicly).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So don't you think these places should be regulated differently then places with public transportation?

No. Why would car insurance not be compulsory in one place instead of the other?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Exactly why it doesn't work as an analogy to auto insurance. In what state are you required to be insured for preventative maintenance on your car? (i.e., an extended warranty).

None. Instead they require you car to be certified in drivable condition as a requisite for valid registration so you can drive the vehicle legally. Sounds completely voluntary.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Where in the world did you get this idea? I haven't had a health plan for about 2 years now, only catastrophic insurance that I don't even provide to the doctors when I go it. I've been to the doctor 4 times in 2013, and paid out of pocket each time for a grand total of $600 including two prescriptions and a shot of cortisone.

You're right. I meant if you're broke. Because clinics can turn you away if you can't pay.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Only because older cars can be totaled and written off for much less than it would take to repair them. Are you suggesting we do this with people to keep our analogy working?

I'm pointing out that insurance works by having one segment pay for the other.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What I want to know is, if having a car is pretty much a requirement according to you, how do you know absolutely nothing about car insurance?

Hahahaha. Asshole comment aside, that's how the world works. You can't know everything about every subject that is intertwined with your life. By your calculation, I've somehow managed to properly insure my cars (and make claims) all my life while not knowing a damned thing. The system works!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure how "no one is competing with the government" can translate to anything but socialism or communism. Competiton is what makes something not socialism. Maybe I misunderstand, could you clarify?

Yeah, the government isn't providing healthcare (except for extreme cases). The vast majority of people signing up are on free-market plans. Free-market plans aren't socialism.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Again, the government DOES NOT MANDATE THAT YOU BUY AUTO INSURANCE COVERAGE ON YOUR OWN CAR. ONLY LIABILITY INSURANCE TO OPERATE THAT VEHICLE. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Consider it liability against your body.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Piece of shit forum!

It eats walls of text for breakfast.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It eats walls of text for breakfast.

...and craps out database errors.

Edit: Nothing left to say here?

[BadKosh]

Start copying your posts to WORD documents so you can re-post it later.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Start copying your posts to WORD documents so you can re-post it later.

I usually hit copy before sending a post but I don't always remember.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and craps out database errors.

Edit: Nothing left to say here?

"Single payer died for their sins" is a little thin on the ground. I didn't know what to do with it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

"Single payer died for their sins" is a little thin on the ground. I didn't know what to do with it.

Well there was the fiscal discussion also.

But my point is, single-payer was a large concession.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's that awful hyperbole again. "Put a gun to their heads" for requesting two things, one of which Dems wanted and the other they're calling for now? That's laughable to the core.

Putting guns to their heads for being willing to shutdown the government over those requests.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, it took a toll on Democrats' numbers as well, it just hurt them less.

Jesus, can you just accept some facts with grace? It doesn't matter how much the Democrats are hated if the GOP is hated more.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You don't think a shutdown would overshadow the more apparent failures of the exchange rollout just as it did the first half of October?

By them I mean Democrats running. Sorry, that was unclear.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Watch as they run from this legislation as fast as they can in the coming months. It will begin with heightened calls for a delay and feigned concern for the millions getting dropped from their current plans.

Of course. Reelection first, America second.

Also, "feigned"? Really, no Democrat is good enough to actually dislike Americans getting dropped from their plan?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Like I said, people most offended or annoyed by the use of the term socialism either haven't a clue what it is or support it and feel its negative baggage is unfortunate.

I take this as your questioning my understanding of it. If I don't understand it, Joe Sixpack certainly doesn't, yet Joe Sixpack loves to dabble with the constitution and the isms, which is exactly my point. This is incoherent because we can't agree upon what this actually means.